8 ms·

EDIT: Consider this, if you're an upstanding citizen, never had problems with the law. and all the sudden an officer pulls you over, plants evidence, sends you

EDIT: Consider this, if you're an upstanding citizen, never had problems with the law. and all the sudden an officer pulls you over, plants evidence, sends you to jail and now your life is ruined forever: no more jobs, no more means to support yourself. This is NOT a minor offense. First of all, drug offenses should never be more than a ticket, perhaps a really expensive ticket for the harder drugs. As for officers, that are blatently planting evidence that puts people in jails. Planting evidence, isn't something you do on accident. It's not something you do because you had a bad day. It's not something that occurs because you made an incorrect split second decision. It's a deliberate offense (planned for days ahead) worse than anything a police officer can do. And it requires the harshest penalty known to man: capital punishment. we need to send a very strong message, that this is under no circumstance acceptable. Personally, i think capital punishment isn't severe enough for this crime. they should also be forced to give up their entire pension and sued into oblivion for their entire networth.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
Do you know what capital punishment is? Giving up the pension is a minor problem after that.
- nkurz 7y ago
  Let my try to restate what Ididntdothis is saying in a self-contained manner in case thorwasdfasdf is unclear. Calling for "capital punishment" means you think the offender should be put to death: literally, the state should take their head. Whether or not this is excessive (most would think so) it seems odd to follow up by saying that they person should also give up their pension and be sued. Could you (thorwasdfasdf) please clarify?
  - thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
    I think capital punishment may not be enough to deter the crime fully (at least not for everyone). But, the person may think twice if their pension wasn't around to go to their next of kin. It's not just about punishing this heinous crime, but rather, it's about setting a precedent, and ensuring that there is sufficient deterence to make sure this never ever happens. It's kinda like that time, someone got 20 years, for Swatting someone. It set a precendence that will never be forgotten.
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      Should serial killers also lose their pension instead of being executed?
      - nkurz 7y ago
        He's not saying "instead", rather he thinks that loss of pension is a useful addition to execution. This doesn't strike me as likely, but then again I don't understand the psychology of serial killers or cops who would plant evidence on someone. I'd also sort of assumed that being sentenced to death for a crime would void any life insurance policies, but I don't know that for sure.

Ididntdothis 7y ago

Do you know what capital punishment is? Giving up the pension is a minor problem after that.

nkurz 7y ago
Let my try to restate what Ididntdothis is saying in a self-contained manner in case thorwasdfasdf is unclear. Calling for "capital punishment" means you think the offender should be put to death: literally, the state should take their head. Whether or not this is excessive (most would think so) it seems odd to follow up by saying that they person should also give up their pension and be sued. Could you (thorwasdfasdf) please clarify?
- thorwasdfasdf 7y ago
  I think capital punishment may not be enough to deter the crime fully (at least not for everyone). But, the person may think twice if their pension wasn't around to go to their next of kin. It's not just about punishing this heinous crime, but rather, it's about setting a precedent, and ensuring that there is sufficient deterence to make sure this never ever happens. It's kinda like that time, someone got 20 years, for Swatting someone. It set a precendence that will never be forgotten.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    Should serial killers also lose their pension instead of being executed?
    - nkurz 7y ago
      He's not saying "instead", rather he thinks that loss of pension is a useful addition to execution. This doesn't strike me as likely, but then again I don't understand the psychology of serial killers or cops who would plant evidence on someone. I'd also sort of assumed that being sentenced to death for a crime would void any life insurance policies, but I don't know that for sure.